3 ms·

You are quoting his thesis in the wrong order. He is not saying Europeans are 'dominant for ever'. He is saying that because of geography, etc... that European

You are quoting his thesis in the wrong order. He is not saying Europeans are 'dominant for ever'. He is saying that because of geography, etc... that Europeans developed technology faster, which gave them a head start, and that head start has perpetuated, exactly because that is what a head start does. Not that it can't even out in time, like a ripple. I think his thesis is totally compatible with saying "if New Guinea" had developed technology sooner, they would have dominated and killed everyone. It isn't like there isn't evidence of wars and slaughters in Polynesia, they just didn't get the technology. What I took away from the book is not that "Europeans" are evil (which would mean they are genetically pre-disposed doesn't it?), it is that all humans equally dominant whenever and however they can, and technology heavily tips the scales. And Europeans just lucked into it.

worik 3y ago
> . And Europeans just lucked into it. That is your interpretation, and mine Not his His was that the geography of Europe is special But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "
- specialist 3y ago
  Diamond's geography thesis is that migration is easier east-west than north-south, not that Europe is (otherwise) special. (Until the UK figured out how to use their island made of coal to make steam and steel at scale.)
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Been awhile for me also. But wasn't it more about East-West Trade. And that 'cross-fertilization' would help everyone across that path, the rising tide raises all boats. So at some point China or Persia also had a chance to leap ahead, but for other factors. I don't think it was a given that Europe would 'win' the technology race. Though, now my memory fails me on what was the deciding factor. But given that humans are equal, with a equal history of violence and conquest. If geography was not a factor. Then what was? We can't just blame Europeans for being successful. If we can't find any external factors, then we are left with internal, and then we'd have to do some logic around what makes them specifically different. Culture? Genes? Those also don't seem correct.
- swombat 3y ago
  > Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. " His thesis is precisely that, so he can definitely bear it. Ultra-summarising: - The Americas fell behind because they eliminated large mammals before inventing domestication, and not having horses and cows is a huge setback. - Sub-Saharan Africa fell behind because it is oriented north-south and there are a lot of different climates you have to travel through, and therefore technology exchange is harder. - Eurasia had the east-west orientation that enabled tech exchange, so it was going to happen there. - Of the Eurasian regions, China could have been first but being too unified meant that they were less competitive and less likely to repeat high-risk ventures until they worked. Europe was fragmented and competitive which led to faster innovation, including more focus on turning anything into a weapon (e.g. gunpowder, invented in China but turned into war devices in Europe) or a disruptor (paper & printing press). All seems pretty logical, and does not ascribe Europe any superior moral character. It's just luck. Unless, of course, you believe that being born in the right place at the right time is related to moral character rather than luck. But I don't think Diamond does that in his book.

worik 3y ago

> . And Europeans just lucked into it. That is your interpretation, and mine Not his His was that the geography of Europe is special But it is not. Even in his speciality, geography, he gets it wrong Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. "

specialist 3y ago
Diamond's geography thesis is that migration is easier east-west than north-south, not that Europe is (otherwise) special. (Until the UK figured out how to use their island made of coal to make steam and steel at scale.)
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Been awhile for me also. But wasn't it more about East-West Trade. And that 'cross-fertilization' would help everyone across that path, the rising tide raises all boats. So at some point China or Persia also had a chance to leap ahead, but for other factors. I don't think it was a given that Europe would 'win' the technology race. Though, now my memory fails me on what was the deciding factor. But given that humans are equal, with a equal history of violence and conquest. If geography was not a factor. Then what was? We can't just blame Europeans for being successful. If we can't find any external factors, then we are left with internal, and then we'd have to do some logic around what makes them specifically different. Culture? Genes? Those also don't seem correct.
swombat 3y ago
> Because he cannot bear that "...Europeans just lucked into it. " His thesis is precisely that, so he can definitely bear it. Ultra-summarising: - The Americas fell behind because they eliminated large mammals before inventing domestication, and not having horses and cows is a huge setback. - Sub-Saharan Africa fell behind because it is oriented north-south and there are a lot of different climates you have to travel through, and therefore technology exchange is harder. - Eurasia had the east-west orientation that enabled tech exchange, so it was going to happen there. - Of the Eurasian regions, China could have been first but being too unified meant that they were less competitive and less likely to repeat high-risk ventures until they worked. Europe was fragmented and competitive which led to faster innovation, including more focus on turning anything into a weapon (e.g. gunpowder, invented in China but turned into war devices in Europe) or a disruptor (paper & printing press). All seems pretty logical, and does not ascribe Europe any superior moral character. It's just luck. Unless, of course, you believe that being born in the right place at the right time is related to moral character rather than luck. But I don't think Diamond does that in his book.